If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[Abongil]

/takes bets as to how many parents would forcefully remove their children from this class and then sue the school for stupidity and a violation of their constitutional rights...

Il start my own wager. 5:1 that one of the parents comes and finds AV, and pees in his cereal.

 

[Chalnoth]

Give the formula for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Energy is a conserved quantity (note: this isn't a universal law, and only holds in specific cases. It doesn't hold in an expanding universe).

Give the formula for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

In a closed system entropy never decreases (Note the closed system I bolded: Earth is an open system, and our entropy is continually being lowered by the uneven heating of the Earth from our sun. This is why we're able to do anything at all).

Name the Four Physical Laws, in order of their magnitude and influence, beginning at the shortest, and ending at the longest.

There aren't four physical laws. But presumably you meant forces. They are:
1. Weak nuclear force (short range, weak, governs nuclear decay).
2. Strong nuclear force (short range, strong, holds atomic nuclei together).
3. Electromagnetic force (infinite range, strong, composed of positive and negative charges that mask total charge, keeping practical range small).
4. Gravity (infinite range, weak, always attractive, making practical range large).

Show how at least two planets in our solar system demonstrate the Anthropic Principle.

Our own planet easily is within the anthropic principle, as we can expect our own planet to be habitable for life because we would never have evolved to observe our planet if it wasn't habitable for life.

The second planet, however, is up for debate. Some have hypothesized that Jupiter has acted to "clean" the solar system of asteroids and comets, preventing too many impacts from preventing life. Thus we might possibly expect any system with life to also have a gas giant. I don't quite buy this argument, though, as Jupiter has also increased the number of asteroids in the system, by preventing the planet that would have formed in the asteroid belt from forming.

Which of the four physical laws will God use to terminate His creation, and support it with chapter and verse.

This doesn't make any sense at all, because if He existed, He wouldn't use a specific physical force/law, but rather a mechanism (unless He felt like just blinking and getting rid of it).

Give at least two benefits of the Water Canopy, and support them with drawings.

There wouldn't be any. It'd cook the Earth from the greenhouse effect preventing any life larger than microbes from surviving.

Explain what "kinds" are in Genesis 1.

Birds, fish, land animals, man. Oh, and the birds were created before the land animals in Genesis 1, making any idea as to Genesis being spread over a great deal of time ridiculous.

How did Nachmonides demonstrate a 10-dimensional universe, using only Genesis 1?

Um, he pretended that the Bible explained something it couldn't?

Give at least three ways Adam and Eve were superior to today's race.

They never existed.

Why did God cause the Sun to go dark from 12:00 - 15:00, from an astronomical perspective?

It's impossible.

EXTRA CREDIT: Draw one constellation in the Zodiac and show what part it pictographically played in conveying the Plan of Salvation.

Huh? So now you're mixing astrology with Christianity? Aren't those two supposed to be diametrically opposed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry --- I gotta give you quick answers --- I'm inna hurry:

Science disagrees with scripture when it comes to the Earth's revolution around the Sun, so clearly you must believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[bible]Joshua 10:13[/bible]

This was written in what is called the language of the observer.

How about the Earth sitting on pillars or having corners?

[bible]1 Samuel 2:8[/bible]

These are the physical laws of the universe.

Haven't you ever heard of the pillars of the community? the pillars of this? or the pillars of that?

[bible]Revelation 7:1[/bible]

Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange.

How about a giant star crashing into the Earth?

[bible]Revelation 8:11[/bible]

This "star" lands in the ocean during the Tribulation Period, and poisons the water. It's a reference to its toxicity, not size.

How about Pi? The Bible says it's 3 - it isn't.

[bible]1 Kings 7:23[/bible]

The diameter, using Pi to the 20[sup]th[/sup] decimal place would be:

9.5492965855137201461410607240318

In view of the fact that it's an infinitesimal number, it has to be cut off somewhere, and rounding it to the whole number is what is known as writer's preference.

How about bats being birds?

[bible]Leviticus 11:19[/bible]
[bible]Deuteronomy 14:18[/bible]

Both of these passages mention the bat at the end of a long list. Again, it's not uncommon to put something that is not totally unrelated in detail at the end of a list.

For example --- George owns Fords --- he has:

• A Focus
• A Fairlane
• A Galaxy 500
• A Taurus
• A Thunderbird
• and a Hornet

 

[nvxplorer]

Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange.

I'm calling Poe's Law.

 

[PanSapiens]

[bible]Revelation 7:1[/bible]

Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange.

The diameter, using Pi to the 20[sup]th[/sup] decimal place would be:

9.5492965855137201461410607240318

In view of the fact that it's an infinitesimal number, it has to be cut off somewhere, and truncating it to the whole number is what is known as writer's preference.

The center of gravity of a slice of orange slice would lie INSIDE it. It's not too windy there. Stupid. You're trying to invent justifications for things that obviously make no sense. The writer said said the earth had four corners. He thought the earth had four corners.

Numbers like pi, phi, e, etc. and their derrivatives are not "infinitesimal." Infinitesimal means small. I think you meant "non-rational." Your high school math teacher would be ashamed. And the problem with the bible verse is that it does not say "approximately." It says 30 cubits. With as literally as you take everything else, it's funny that you're so willing to fudge the numbers a little bit here.

The bible is scientifically uninformed. The rest of your explations are lacking as well, but I tire of trying to make clear things clear to people who intentionally obfuscate them.

 

[MartinM]

These are the physical laws of the universe.

Haven't you ever heard of the pillars of the community? the pillars of this? or the pillars of that?

Ah, good old literalism. Nothing quite like the plain meaning, eh?

Take and orange and cut it into four equal pieces. You now have 4 wedges. Now find the center of gravity in each wedge, and voila, you have the 4 corners of an orange

Now you're just making stuff up.

Besides, there's nothing special about the four points you pick out there. You arbitrarily chose to make them special by a) the way you chose to cut, and b) the way you selected a point from each slice.

You had to do so because, of course, round things have no corners. And you know that perfectly well, too.

 

[RichardT]

This was written in what is called the language of the observer.

nope. That's where your wrong. I would advise you to read Dr.Bouw's book, Geocentricity, he shows how there is no possible way to show that Geocentricity is wrong.

 

[MartinM]

There's no way to show anything wrong, unless you're willing to accept a reasonable, consistent method of separating right from wrong in the first place.

 

[Tiphereth]

nope. That's where your wrong. I would advise you to read Dr.Bouw's book, Geocentricity, he shows how there is no possible way to show that Geocentricity is wrong.

Greetings and Salutations,

Please excuse me, but this claim is quite astonishing. Do you actually agree with the idea that the Earth does not rotate and that the Sun revolves around the Earth? I'm interested in understanding your position of these matters.

 

[Chalnoth]

nope. That's where your wrong. I would advise you to read Dr.Bouw's book, Geocentricity, he shows how there is no possible way to show that Geocentricity is wrong.
[/size][/font]

The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.

 

[corvus_corax]

Whoa --- not so fast there, Corvus --- time for the Finals:<snipped for brevity> You may begin.

Seeing as how another already answered these, my doing so would be redundant.
But of course, that wasnt my point at all.
My earlier point, since you missed it completely, is that I fulfilled your required course (that you listed earlier) in about 10 minutes. Your "final exam" is nothing more than moving the goalposts (so very typical) due to the fact that your layout earlier has nothing to do with this "test" you proposed.
Creationism is easy.
The only good that can come of teaching it, as a subject in itself, in a science room are the many many easy "A's" that would be passed out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seeing as how another already answered these, my doing so would be redundant.
But of course, that wasnt my point at all.
My earlier point, since you missed it completely, is that I fulfilled your required course (that you listed earlier) in about 10 minutes. Your "final exam" is nothing more than moving the goalposts (so very typical) due to the fact that your layout earlier has nothing to do with this "test" you proposed.
Creationism is easy.
The only good that can come of teaching it, as a subject in itself, in a science room are the many many easy "A's" that would be passed out.

No, Corvus, I'm not a diploma mill. Do you want me to take the "answers" already given to me as your answers?

WARNING: I'm not grading on a curve.

Just how badly do you want that certificate?

 

[RichardT]

The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.

Bouw explains this problem in his book

 

[AV1611VET]

Now you're just making stuff up.

Did I make this up?

Gavin Eslar and Anne Mackenzie explore issues from the four corners of the Earth - from politics to popular culture, art to anthropology.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

The fact that we've been able to send probes to the moon and most of the planets in our solar system says quite succintly that geocentrism is wrong. If geocentrism was correct, none of those probes would have been capable of reaching their destinations, as their paths were predicted by Newtonian gravity, and Newtonian gravity requires the sun to be at the center of the solar system.

Actually, as I understand it, Richard T's point is sort of trivially true. In relativity, all frames of reference are equivalent and you can certainly adjust the mathmatics of Newtonian physics such that they will work with a geocentric universe, we just choose to use the simpler transformation.

That being said, I won't even bother with a napkin calculation of the forces involved in stopping the sun in it's orbit.

 

[Jase]

Did I make this up?

So in other words, you take literal what you have no clue about ( Genesis) and you take metaphoric what is easily personally verifiable ( the Earth having corners). How convenient.

 

[RichardT]

Did I make this up?

I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:

Thus the ordinances of heaven cannot be restricted or equated to what is popularly called the "laws of physics." Actually the socalled "laws of physics" are not "laws" at all; for if they were then God would break the "law" every time that he performed a miracle. Take the "second law of thermodynamics," for example. One of the implications of the "second law" is that the dead cannot be resurrected; nevertheless, Jesus resurrected Lazarus and others and thus violated the "second law." When Jesus ascended into heaven he violated both the law of gravity and Newton's second law which states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. When God spoke the universe into existence he violated the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy (or matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus the "laws" of physics are "laws" only in the traditions of men. They are not God's inviolable laws or ordinances.(p.132)

-Gerardus D. Bouw

Association for Biblical Astronomy
4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A

 

[Jase]

I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:

Thus the ordinances of heaven cannot be restricted or equated to what is popularly called the "laws of physics." Actually the socalled "laws of physics" are not "laws" at all; for if they were then God would break the "law" every time that he performed a miracle. Take the "second law of thermodynamics," for example. One of the implications of the "second law" is that the dead cannot be resurrected; nevertheless, Jesus resurrected Lazarus and others and thus violated the "second law." When Jesus ascended into heaven he violated both the law of gravity and Newton's second law which states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. When God spoke the universe into existence he violated the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy (or matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus the "laws" of physics are "laws" only in the traditions of men. They are not God's inviolable laws or ordinances.(p.132)

-Gerardus D. Bouw

Association for Biblical Astronomy
4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A

Jesus violated gravity because he floated into the air? Wow, I guess helium balloons, air planes, the space shuttle, etc. are in very a rude awakening then. Or does God perform a miracle on them every time they "defy" gravity?

 

[RichardT]

Jesus violated gravity because he floated into the air? Wow, I guess helium balloons, air planes, the space shuttle, etc. are in very a rude awakening then. Or does God perform a miracle on them every time they "defy" gravity?

um, there are reasons why helium balloos, air planes, and the space shuttle do fly..

But there is no way for a human to fly on his own other than breaking the natural laws.

edit: (well, I wouldn't know what the future holds, so, it's impossible for now ><)

 

[Jelumismom]

This was an interesting question I raised quite a while ago in the Christians-only origins forum, but I'd like to bring it up here again where a number of different creationists seem to be more regular.

If there really was a subject called Creation Science, how would you teach it?

I'd want to see a list of topics and intended learning outcomes. For example, under the field (hehe) of electromagnetism, a common topic is "Coulomb's Law" and the intended outcome is "Students should be able to describe Coulomb's Law and use it to quantitatively compute the force between two charges." So yes. If we wanted to teach kids in school about creationism, how would go about it? And what would you want them to learn at the end?

I think this could be an instructive exercise, if rigorously followed, in why we don't call creationism science, and why suggesting that it be included in school education is not a good idea.

Excellent...EXCELLENT topic!

My biggest complaint about the way schools teach science, specifically evolution, is that they present it as absolute truth, rather than theory. All science, regardless of whether you believe in creation or not, is best guess based on the observations of the world around us. The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.

I'm a homeschool mom and science is one of our favorite subjects. I think it is important that my children understand both evolution and creation theories. I also think it's important that they determine for themselves what they believe...and the only way they can do that is to receive as much information as possible. Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other? I think it is more detrimental to try to brainwash our children into believing what we believe than it is to teach them everything there is to know about a subject and let them decide for themselves what they believe.

The public school system should be promoting open thinking...after all, it's the very principle our country was founded on. Makes you wonder what everyone's so afraid of, doesn't it??